SC - Pigs revisited-long

[LrdRas at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/19/98 12:40:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
allilyn at juno.com writes:

<< What else
 have you read?
 
 
 Regards,
 
 Allison >>

My sources were included in 2 previous posts on the subject. One posted
several months
 ago and the final one I posted referencing Yorksire that grew up to 1000 lbs.
The FDA yearbook infactically states 2 things that are of particular interest.
One was that pigs have been consistently bred for leanness ONLY since the
inception of vegetable shortenings and oils in the last half of THIS century
made lard virtually unnecessary. And the second interesting tidbit was that
through modern breeding programs designed to produce LEANER pork, there has
been a deterioration of the quality of the flesh.

Also others have mentioned that Chinese pigs were bred into modern pig lines
in the 19th century. Since the introduction of those genes was SPECIFICALLY
used to increase survival of litters and to bring the pig to market weight
QUICKER, it clearly shows that pigs before such genetic manipulation had
smaller litters and took somewhat longer to reach market weight. Market weight
has remained pretty much constant for centuries (300 to 500 lbs. for pigs as
opposed to a 600 plus weight for hogs. According to the Domesday produced by
England's Norman conquerers, the average land-holder owned 30 to 60 acres of
land and possesed 8 to 30 pigs/hogs with lower numbers of pigs being the norm

University of Oklahoma researchers state that it was not until THIS century
that intensive research and breeding programs were specifically geared toward
producing leaner pork. Before that breeding was geared exclusively toward
'bacon) (e.g. lard) production, reaching a pinnacle in the Victorian era when
hogs weighing over a half ton were not uncommon. During the Middle Ages stock
selection for breeding was based on foraging expertise, which translates into
the quality of a pig being able to quickly reach market weight through its own
devices.

So far as the boar vs. pig question, I would say that if a period picture of a
pig looks like a boar, then it is a boar. Boars are not only a different
species but also have a completely different body structure than domesticated
pigs. Basically, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Since boar
hunting was a perogative of the medieval nobleman, it doesn't surprise me that
a large percentage of illuminations of pig-like creatures bear more of a
resemblance to 'boars' instead of pigs.

I agree that Platina's example of a pig so fat that it could not prevent a
mouse from gnawing a nest in it's side and rearing a family is unique.I do
not, however, think he meant it to be viewed as sensational. The fact that the
word he used is 'pig' and not 'hog' is what I find significant. He was not
stating that hogs that large were unsual. He was clearly staing that he found
the story of a 'pig' that large unusual. I agree with him.

Finally, a call to the local Agricultural extention officer, produced the
interesting comment that until 25 yrs ago, it was considered a 'good' thing to
have an excessively large percentage of back fat on a pig. What makes this
statement interesting is that the thickness of backfat is how the value of a
market pig is determined.

Couple this with  the small number of period recipes using pork as opposed to
bacon, there can be no other conclusion than one which views period pigs as a
major source of bacon/lard rather than meat, IMO.

Ras
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================